Restaurant rescinds prayer discount

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Magical Realist, Aug 11, 2014.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Firstly, I have to say, the very notion of offering discounts for praying is foreign to me. At first, I thought it was a joke thread, to be honest. The mere thought of it had the explosive "baahahahaaa ahahahaaa" moment. I mean really, it's come to this?

    Now that I realised that someone actually offered discounts for patrons who prayed, I have to say, all sorts of wonderful things entered my mind. The things you could do.. Satanists for example.. One could have a field day with it and enjoy a 15% discount. Sadly, as is often the case with such things, it is reserved for only one group or type of patrons and would exclude all who do not fit that particular group.

    Secondly, while private business owners have the right to run their business as they see fit within the confines of the law, the whole notion of 'prayer discount' sets aside a portion of society, or in this instance, customers, who would benefit from it and others would be wholly excluded because a) they are not the same religion, b) do not fit what the business owners saw as 'prayer', c) would deny any chance of a discount at anyone who did not fit into the personal category of the owners.

    And that is where it becomes tricky. Would the business offer a 15% discount to a group of atheists who had a declaration of thanks to friends and loved ones instead of prayer, in lieu of a prayer? Would they offer the same discount to theists of other faiths, such as Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, for example? I would imagine not. I would imagine that the discount would only apply to a particular religious group or portion of the community. And I would imagine a Muslim family laying down their prayer mat in the restaurant to pray and give thanks to Allah would not gather the same level of support a Christian family holding hands and praising Jesus would have. In short, while both are classified as 'prayer', only one would benefit from the discount.

    Enter discrimination and the illegality of such policies. Certainly, the business is free to offer discounts to its customers, but the law also dictates that discrimination based on one's religious leanings or beliefs will also not be tolerated. And what this restaurant tried to do was just that. It attempted to discriminate against its non-Christian customers while discriminating for its Christian customers and the end result was that the favoured portion of their customers gained some benefits for eating there because they were of a particular religion or religious group at the exclusion of all others. If the business owner had stated that families with all white children would get a discount, no one would bat an eyelid at the illegality of such a policy. Because it distinctly discriminates against anyone who is incapable of fitting into that criteria and the result is a gain for those who do.

    It's illegal and simply bad business. It's downright rude and unwelcoming and skirts illegality because it so directly discriminates against people who do not fit into the group the business wants to support more over any other, and all based solely on religious belief and religious affiliation.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    No. I want all people - bigots and non-bigots alike - to have the same rights. My opinion on their bigotry (or lack thereof) should not determine whether they can exercise their rights, just as I demand that I am allowed to exercise my rights even if they disagree with me.

    You are requiring something that a Christian Scientist is unable to give you because of the restrictions of their religion. Hence you are barring them from receiving something free due to their religion.

    Now, you could argue that since you have not specified a religion, it does not have a religious component, and they are making their own independent decision on not to donate blood. Fine - in that case, as long as this restaurant does not require prayers in a specific religion, they should have the same freedom.

    If you want to ban both, then at least your argument is self-consistent. If you want to allow discrimination against Christian Scientists but not atheists, then you have a bit of a disconnect.

    Why? Anyone can say a prayer regardless of their religion.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    We do. You wouldn't be allowed to offer the discount any more than they would.

    I'm not barring them from anything. That their religion doesn't allow them to partake is immaterial, because the offer is not religious in nature. If I offered a discount for people who ordered Kosher, then we'd have a problem, because that would be a specifically-religious offer.

    It's not just about specifying a religion, bilvon. The blood drive analogy is not religious in nature. Giving blood is a secular practice. Prayer is not. That is the difference.

    No one's discriminating against Christian Scientists. That's like saying I discriminate against Jews when I offer Driver's Ed classes on the Sabbath.

    Unless you're an atheist. Or someone who doesn't believe in public prayer. Or someone who requires more than a simple bow of the head at the table. Or someone who only prays at specific times of the day, or in specific situations. But hey, fuck those people, amirite?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Already "had a crack at it". Your lack of comprehension is hardly my problem.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    That doesn't work.


    Even Mr. Bessinger’s own brother turned on him when the NAACP threatened a boycott after it was revealed that he was distributing pro-slavery literature in his restaurants, causing almost every grocery chain, including Wal-Mart, to yank his product from the shelves. Yet, he stood by his racism even though it cost him almost 98 percent of his business.

    Maurice Bessinger died earlier this year and his children took over the restaurant chain in 2010 with no interest in using the business to engage in the angry, racial politics of their father. The Confederate pictures and the pro-slavery literature are now gone, and the Stars and Bars that used to fly over each Piggie Park location have been taken down as well.


    http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/
     
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    How did that business make money? If it was so reviled, who was buying it?
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I guess whoever that 2% was left that didn't mind a little racism.
     
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Awesome. Mods still doing all of the flaming.

    You stay classy, Kitt.

    Anyway, I'll accept this as you acquiescing the point.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    That sounds like "everyone has the same rights! Gays can marry people of the opposite sex too, so there's no discrimination."
    So it should be illegal to charge different prices for kosher food vs. non-kosher food? Again, I disagree.
    I disagree. To a Christian Scientist, giving blood is a secular ONLY practice; you ban Christian Scientists from getting the free food because their religion prohibits the action you require.
    Exactly. Or charge different prices for Kosher food. Or not have a Shabbat elevator in your building. Those things may be specific to a religion, and are in fact discriminatory - but they are not, and should not be, illegal.
    "We are thankful for the food on this table.
    We are thankful for this time together.
    Our thoughts go out to family and friends;
    We hope that they are safe and well."

    Boom! Discount. No religion needed; atheists need not do anything that offends them.

    Don't like that one? Then this might work:

    "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    the courage to change the things I can,
    and the wisdom to know the difference."

    And that lunch just got cheaper.
    And that's fine. If you don't feel like saying anything, you don't get the discount. If you don't feel like talking like a pirate on "free-rum-for-pirates" day you don't get the free rum. If you don't donate blood you don't get the dessert. Your choice.
    You can fuck them if you like. I'd prefer them to have the same rights as everyone else.
     
  13. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    And I see you are still incapable of holding an actual debate without resorting to low brow tactics. Ah well, some people never learn... I should have known better than to expect better of you.

    PS - you can't flame someone, then report their response for supposed flaming: doesn't work that way. You want to report flaming, don't partake in the title for tat

    At this point though, we are quite off topic
     
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    I think explicit warning labels are necessary in this day and age because of a legal system that now allows anyone to sue a corporation for just about anything. So they essentially HAVE to cover their ass to avoid liability for their product being misused in any stupid way. Take the lady who successfully sued McDonald's for her "too hot" coffee spilling on her. McDonald's coffee cups now have warning labels about the coffee being hot. It's ridiculous but regrettably necessary.
     
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Which, honestly, furthers my point - this kind of thing shouldn't happen. If you put a cup of fresh coffee between your thighs, spill it on yourself, and burn yourself... well, ya know what, you shouldn't have put it there! Now, granted, McDonalds coffee WAS far beyond the temperature at which any normal human being could actually drink it... but the same applies: If you eat a tube of Preparation H... or buy a piece of electronic equipment and think the desiccant gel is something edible... or if you use the hairdryer while standing in a tub full of water... you know what? Honestly, you deserve whatever happens, cause yer just that stupid.

    Common sense needs to make a serious resurgence...
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Those who have learned from experience have made a short list of discriminations that should be forbidden to owners of businesses in their public dealings - religion is one of them.

    The problem is not the personal bigotry or whatever - the problem is the amplification of its effects on others via the operations of the business. The fact that it is a restaurant - not a bigot - giving a business discount - not a dollar in charity or the like - is central.

    No, you should not be arrested. You should be, and are, forbidden to do that, however - it is not legal to offer remuneration for donating whole blood, in the US.

    That depends on whether what you are trying to get them to say is religious in nature, and whether you are offering your discount via a business that deals with the public. That is illegal, and for good reason.

    The people who wrote the Constitution had a lot of experience with religious discrimination. They knew what they were doing.

    That event has been so loudly and repetitively misrepresented, by a well funded corporate propaganda operation designed to present corporate America as a bullied and harassed and long-suffering manifestation of common sense, that the actual situation is probably lost to public discussion, but maybe this will at least give people a pause: the verdict against MacDonalds was from a jury of twelve people with as much common sense as the folks here, and after hearing what had happened they were so angry with that corporation they recommended unusually severe punishment on top of a regular injury award.

    That was not a ridiculous lawsuit. That was flagrant corporate irresponsibility and arrogance getting beaten with the jury stick - starting with the fact that grandma there was far from the first person to end up in an emergency room from McD's takeout coffee, just the first one to suffer the third degree burns over such a large percentage of their body that they required weeks of hospitalization and skin grafts.

    There is currently a marketing effort underway, by the best marketers the world has ever seen working with essentially unlimited resources, to persuade people that corporations are a vulnerable and harassed and abused body of well-meaning citizens who are the targets of an amoral and shameless gang of profiteers - namely, the despised tribe of "lawyers". They aren't. They are the primary employers of lawyers amoral and shameless, and the primary abusers of others via frivolous lawsuits, and the primary beneficiaries of ridiculous legal decisions in violation of common sense.

    Way back, a long time ago, a very successful CEO named Robert Townsend ("Up the Organization") wrote a couple of pages on the topic of the poor abused corporation being sued by some ridiculous customer, and he pointed out that such lawsuits followed a common and easily avoided pattern: they started out with a customer suffering some injury, and wanting it made right and apologized for, in good faith. Then the corporation, instead of doing that, lied to the customer and threatened the customer and disparaged the customer and berated and dismissed and further injured the customer. Whereupon the customer set out to get not merely recognition and compensation, but revenge. And sometimes they got it.

    The McD coffee case, for example, started out with the 79 year old lady personally (no fancy lawyer) asking the company to cover her actual billed medical expenses and a couple weeks of lost wages - less than 20,000 dollars, even before the expected counteroffer.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I disagree, and I applaud places that support blood drives by offering discounts or even free stuff. I often get free stuff when I donate, and if such offers can entice other people in, everyone benefits.
    An excellent point. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." They specifically did NOT say "Congress shall pass laws prohibiting religious favoritism."

    It wasn't phrased that way because they were sloppy, or careless, or stupid. It was phrased that way for a very good reason - to prevent the GOVERNMENT from passing laws supporting one religion or the other, and to allow PEOPLE (including people who own businesses) the freedom to pursue any religion they want - including religious decorations, discounts, deals, freebies etc.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    At whatever legal point "free stuff" becomes compensation or remuneration it is illegal in the US. Free meals at a restaurant certainly qualify.

    The reasoning here is not as ironclad and irrefutable as the prohibitions on religious discrimination, but isn't bad - desperation for money should be curbed in its expression, or it becomes too valuable to those in a position to create it.

    That part came in the equal protection clauses, and the extension of Constitutional curbs to State law.

    That's why, as noted above, the fact that this is a business - not a person - doing this is central.

    Nobody is claiming that any person, even the owner of a business, is prohibited from being a bigot and managing their personal affairs accordingly. But a business (a creation of State law) dealing with the public is forbidden such bigotry in certain specific arenas - religion among them. And the reasons here are very, very good ones.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Then I have gone to several illegal blood drives, restaurants and company functions, and will continue to do so.
    Again I disagree. People own businesses, and people determine the course of those businesses.
     
  20. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I didn't flame you, though we all know you saying I did magically amounts to proof. You flamed me, so I reported it. We're off topic, as usual, because of the fucked-up persknap shit that you--as usual--said to a member of the forum unprovoked.
     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Ridiculous. We're not talking about someone losing rights n comparison to another. I wouldn't be able to offer a discount to atheists, so the gay marriage analogy doesn't fly.

    I didn't say that. I said I can't offer speckal discounts based on religious affiliation.

    Secular means being without spiritual or religious basis. Giving blood for healthcare purposes is secular. That's the difference. They're not requiring you to be irreligious; the offer stands irrespective of religious practices. Meanwhile, the prayer discount required a religious practice from customers.

    Incorrect. They are nothing like the diner discount. An accurate paralell would be requiring a Christian prayer to take the faster elevator, or denouncing God to get a store credit. Simply offering items that certain religions prohibit is not at all the same thing. The difference should be quite obvious.


    So the ability to feign religiosity makes it okay? Lol. Um, no.

    And it isn't necessarily about being offended (though the idea that people who pray get to pay less does offend me), but about the fact that I am being discriminated against for not praying.

    Don't like that one? Then this might work:

    That's a prayer, bil. A well-known Irish prayer, at that.

    At the expense of my dignity, no less.

    That's a problem, obviously. I mean, what's the limit here? What if they wanted you to declare love for Jesus for the discount? That'd be fine, too? After all, I could just lie about it, right?

    And please don't pretend that you don't know the difference between requiring prayer and requiring pirate-talk. I mean, I'm not stupid, and I prefer that you didn't treat me as if I were.

    Well you're in luck, because they do!

    (Way to duck the question, btw)
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    So?

    And Scalia seems to agree that being owned by humans bestows the status of personhood on State chartered business entities, with all its rights and privileges. And a century of hard won civil rights protections go right out the window, through the magic of capitalist ownership: protected by the State from the usual accountability inherent in an actual biological reality, and amplified by its access to public resources and control of environment far beyond what mere biological humans can manage in influence.

    How far away would discounted airline travel for non-Islamic religion adherence be? Discounted tuition for non-Asian male physiognomy? Three tier pricing at southern Walmarts? Refusal of certain high-end car manufacturers allow sales to black people?

    Race, sex, and religion are singled out from all the other human attributes because they have been so often and so invariably leverage points of oppression. It's not a theoretical matter.
     
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Oh piss off ya great blowhard. I get it; you don't like authority. You appear to have issues with every moderator here. Want a tip? Suck it up buttercup; I'm not going to bend to your pathetic whinging, no matter how loud it gets.

    @OP - I still don't see the issue... if we want to be a free-capitalist society, then let the consumer base speak for what they want or don't want...

    Then again, we had to bail the auto-makers out when they couldn't get their shit together, so meh...
     

Share This Page